It occurred to me the other day that religion resembles nothing so much as a hobby. I quickly discovered this insight is far from original with me.I'm not a professional atheist. Not a member of any humanist or secularist group. No theologian, logician or lawyer. I think of myself as your neighborhood non-believer. Appar ently there's a growing number of us. In 2008 researchers conducted...

I am an agnostic, but I do believe that there is SOMEHING "divine" in the universe. I think often of the quote by a scientist -- sorry, I can't find the original quote for attibution --that said something like "thinking that nature is just a result of accidents is like thinking that a collection of mechanical parts falling from the sky could assemble themselves into a 747 before reaching the ground."

However, I think that whatever that "SOMETHING" is, it is beyond the scope of humans to understand It, and that religions that profess to have all the answers don't. I also think that most mainstream "Christian" religions (and the Roman Catholic religion, in particular) are primarily concerned with human, not Divine, power (and profits).

I have two main issues (and several minor issues I will not address here) with Mr Faris "Waiting for Godot" editorial:

1. His stated reasons for rejecting miracles (and in particular the miracle of the resurection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ).

2. He does not understand the difference between "Religion" and a true "Relationship with the living God"

First, Mr. Faris questions Justice Scalia's assertion that faith and reason go hand in hand in the search for "Truth". He uses a convoluted argument that once you accept miracles, "anything goes" and therefore, the Christian has no basis to use reason in claiming the Branch Davidians to be a counterfeit faith.

The two areas he attacks (1. the over 2000 years of investigation of the resurection by more accomplished scholars than Mr Faris or me; and 2.) eyewitness accounts), in reality are two of the strongest arguments for the truth of the resurection.

I respectfully suggest that Mr Faris, if he has not already done so, take the time to study some of these investigations. Many have lead to the conversion of non-believers into believers and followers of Christ (One modern example is Josh McDowell who wrote an excellent book detailing his journey to faith).

As to eywitness acounts, Mr Faris is correct that in many cases, they have shown to be unreliable. However, the verse from 1 Corinthians below demonstrates that the eyewitness accounts of Jesus resurection exceeded 500 people (and many of these people were willing to suffer horrible deaths rather than recant their testimony)! I wonder if Mr Faris has any examples of unreliability when the number of eyewitnesses is that large and were willing to die for their testimony. Also, as the Apostle included in his account, though several of the eyewitnesses had died by the time Paul wrote this letter, most were still living and available to defend their testimoney against the stories advanced in Paul's time against the resurection. These verses have always reminded me of our modern day where holocaust survivors continue to provide a powerful witness to refute the claims of holocaust deniers. Finally, as police interegators have long known, slight discrepancies in individual testimonies of eyewitnesses actually strengthen rather than weaken the case that the testimonies are true.

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time." 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8

Second, Mr Faris uses the sleight of hand approach in his argument when he lumps all religion together. Yes, it is quite true, that if you examine the tennants of all the religions on earth you will find many contradictory "truths". But that is only because religion is merely man's invention of who God is as opposed to God's revelation of who he is. I liken religion vs. God's Revelation to this. Religion is like man trying to leap across the Grand Canyon. Some who are old and/or crippled (Like the Branch Davidians) will barely leap a foot off the ledge. Others may, like olympic atheletes, leap 30 feet. From a human perspective the 30' religion is much closer to God. However, when you get the larger perspective from above and see how far each leap is from the other edge of the Grand Canyon you realize man's finite attempt to have a relationship with and infinite God falls woefully short, which is why we all need a Savior.

That savior comes in the form of Jesus Christ, and God has given us his Word which includes something that no other religion has...1.) Accounts of miracles; and 2.) fullfilled prophecy.

It does seem that Mr. Faris has failed to keep up with the latest research. In The Righeous Mind, the author has done research into moral psychology. The author notes that people that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) are a very small subculture from the rest of the world. In performing psychological testing and moral psychological testing this group is an outlier. Further, the author notes that those of the WEIRD group that have a college education are more of an outlier on both the psychology scales and moral psychology scales. They are WEIRDER than the rest of us.

Further, I would caution all people. Pascal was one the smartest people that has ever lived. It is cautionary to consider Pascal's Wager. This is further described on the Standford University web site.

Pascal's Wager

First published Sat May 2, 1998; substantive revision Wed Jun 4, 2008

'Pascal's Wager' is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pens'es, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a 'wager' ? it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as 'Pascal's Wager'. We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity.